NAZIR AHMAD Versus THE STATE

ORDER

Nazir Ahmad, Bashir Ahmad and Muhammad Akram petitioners who are involved in a case under section 17 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, have moved this petition for bail.

2. The prosecution version is that on the night between 9/10th November, 1981, a dacoity was committed in the house of Ilam Din complainant by four unknown persons who took away ornaments and cash from his house. During the occurrence Ilam Din complainant, Muhammad Ramzan, Muhammad Saleem, Sardar Muhammad, Sher Muhammad, Farzand Ali, Abdul Haq and Fateh Muhammad sustained injuries.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the first instance three persons, namely, Ghani. Nazra and Ghafoor were arrested in this case. In an identification parade held in District Jail, Faisalabad. Ilam Din complainant, Sardar Muhammad, Muhammad Ramzan. Abdul Haq, Sher Muhammad and Muhammad Saleem identified them as the culprits. They were, however, found innocent during the investiga tion and were got discharged. It is alleged that after some time Faqir Muhammad, Siddiq and Sharif made extra‑judicial confession before Muhammad Sharif Lambardar, Muhammad Sharif son of Nawab and Mnnzur Ahmad to the effect that the present petitioners, Qayum and Aslam had committed dacoity in the house of Ilam Din at their instance. The petitioners were arrested on 26th June, 1981 and were admitted to interim bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 6th October, 1981. However, their petition was later on dismissed on 30th November, 1981. During the investigation some clothes and ear‑rings were allegedly recovered from them. Since three persons namely Ghani Nazra and Ghafoor were identified by a number of witnesses as culprits, the case of the petition ers needs further enquiry. The contention of the learned counsel for petitioners that there was no earthly reason for Faqir Muhammad Sharif and Siddiq accused to make any confession before Sharif Lambardar, A etc. more than eight months after the occurrence, has also sufficient force and would require serious consideration at the trial. In the circumstances, the interim bail allowed to the petitioners by order dated 7th December, 1981 is confirmed.

Bail granted.